https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795128 Customs confiscation for non-declaration of imported gold is discussed through the evidentiary significance of a nil customs declaration, recovery records, a signed panchnama and a statement recorded under Section 108. The notes explain that an unsupported claim of interception before access to the Red Channel may not displace contemporaneous records, particularly for an experienced traveller. They further state that erased CCTV footage does not necessarily negate documentary evidence, and that a later retraction requires contemporaneous support for alleged coercion. Judicial review is described as limited: concurrent factual findings are not reappreciated unless perverse, unsupported by evidence, arbitrary, jurisdictionally defective or manifestly illegal. en-us Wed, 15 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Jul 2026 11:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795128 Customs confiscation for non-declaration of imported gold is discussed through the evidentiary significance of a nil customs declaration, recovery records, a signed panchnama and a statement recorded under Section 108. The notes explain that an unsupported claim of interception before access to the Red Channel may not displace contemporaneous records, particularly for an experienced traveller. They further state that erased CCTV footage does not necessarily negate documentary evidence, and that a later retraction requires contemporaneous support for alleged coercion. Judicial review is described as limited: concurrent factual findings are not reappreciated unless perverse, unsupported by evidence, arbitrary, jurisdictionally defective or manifestly illegal. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 15 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795128